DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongjiang, et. al. (CN102658152A), in view of Sofiane Makhloufi, et. al. Synthesis, characterization, and electrocatalytic properties of La0.9Sr0.1Cr1−xCoxO3 perovskite oxides. J Aust Ceram Soc 55, 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41779-018-0204-5, and Sugiura, et. al. (US2018316000A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yongjiang teaches a perovskite-type composite oxide powder (“[p.1] The perovskite catalyst prepared by this technology has the chemical formula of ABXB'1-XO3 (0≤ X ≤1”) represented by a general formula ABO3-δ (“ [p.2] Example 1: The stoichiometric molar ratio La:Ni:Co is 1:0.8:0.2”) (where δ represents an amount of deficiency of oxygen and 0 ≤ δ < 1), wherein an element contained in an A site is La, elements contained in a B site are Co and Ni (“[p.3] The chemical formula is LaNi0.8Co0.2O3”). Yongjiang at p.3. However, Yongjiang is silent as to a crystallite size determined by a Williamson-Hall method is equal to or greater than 20 nm and equal to or less than 100 nm.
Sofiane teaches a perovskite oxide for use within a fuel cell anode, and notes that “the perovskite oxides of the general composition ABO3 (A = La, Sr, Ce, Ba, Sm, and B = Co, Ni, Cu, or Cr,) with excellent electrical conductivities and electrocatalysis were considered as possible materials for the application of DMFC anode.” Sofiane at p.1. The samples ranged from a crystallite size of ~42 – 49 nm (measured by the Williamson-Hall equation), decreasing in crystallite size within increased Cobalt content. Id. at p.6. Sofiane teaches “indeed, the addition of cobalt allowed to raise the current density which is approximately four times higher for La0.9Sr0.1Cr0.6Co0.4O3 . . . This is possibly due to the porosity structure induced by cobalt addition, which acts positively on the catalytic activity by increasing the number of reactant accessible catalyst sites.” Id. at p. 8-9. In other words, Sofiane teaches a connection between an improvement to catalytic activity, and the crystallite size / cobalt molar fraction relationship within a Lanthanum perovskite oxide.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that it comprises a crystallite size of 42 – 49 nm (i.e., within the range of 20 – 56.4 nm), because Sofiane teaches a benefit to catalytic activity, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
However, modified Yongjiang is silent as to an oxide with the formula LaCo0.4Ni0.6O3-δ, wherein δ represents an amount of deficiency of oxygen 0 ≤ δ < 1.
Sugiura teaches an electron conducting oxide 3 for a lithium ion battery, wherein, “[0038] That is, the electron conducting oxide 3 is represented by the following Formula (I): ACox1 Mx2O3 . . . where, in the formula, A is at least one of La and Sr, M is at least one of Mn and Ni, and x1 and x2 satisfy 0<x1≤1, 0≤x2≤1, 0.6≤x1+x2≤1] . . . [0040] In the electron conducting oxide 3 , electrical neutrality may be obtained due to loss of some oxygen. That is, in Formula (I), a composition proportion of oxygen (O) may be smaller than 3. An amount of oxygen loss may be, for example, about 0 mol to 1 mol, with respect of 3 mol of oxygen.” Sugiura at [0038 – 45].
This formula, as described, teaches, for example, LaCo0.4Ni0.6O3-δ, wherein δ is zero (i.e., O3 as in the base formula), or up to 1, completely encompassing the range of “an amount of deficiency of oxygen 0 ≤ δ < 1.” Id. An encompassing range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Further, this embodiment taught by the disclosed range falls within 0.2 ≤ x2 ≤0.95, and Sugiura teaches “[0045] In Formula (I), x2 may satisfy 0.2≤x2≤0.95. When a composition proportion (x2) of M (at least one of Mn and Ni) satisfies 0.2≤x2≤0.95, both an effect of improving electron conductivity and an effect of preventing gas generation can be expected. For example, x2 may satisfy 0.2≤x2≤0.8, may satisfy 0.2≤x2≤0.7, may satisfy 0.2≤x2≤0.5, x2 may satisfy 0.5≤x2≤0.8, or may satisfy 0.5≤x2≤0.7.” This indicates that, for example, LaCo0.4Ni0.6O3 presents a benefit to conductivity and preventing gas generation.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.01(a). Here, Sugiura teaches an electron conducting oxide 3, utilized within a lithium ion battery rather than the fuel cell of Yongjiang. However, this is the same field of endeavor as it is utilized as a conductive material within the electrode, and it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, because maximizing conductivity would present a problem faced by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when constructing a fuel cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that the perovskite-type composite oxide powder has the formula LaCo0.4Ni0.6O3, such that “[0040] an amount of oxygen loss may be, for example, about 0 mol to 1 mol, with respect of 3 mol of oxygen,” as in the electron conducting oxide 3 of Sugiura, because Sugiura teaches a benefit to conductivity and preventing gas generation.
Claim 1 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane and Sugiura.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang teaches an “oxygen electrode catalyst,” including an oxygen electrode for use in a “solid fuel cell.” Yongjiang at p. 1. Taken together, Yongjiang teaches an air electrode for a solid oxide fuel cell, the air electrode comprising: the perovskite-type composite oxide powder according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane and Sugiura.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 4. Claim 4 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang teaches an “oxygen electrode catalyst,” comprising a perovskite oxide, including an oxygen electrode for use in a “solid fuel cell.” Yongjiang at p. 1. Solid fuel cells are characterized by their use of a solid electrolyte, meaning that this “solid fuel cell” disclosure indicates a solid electrolyte. Taken together, Yongjiang teaches or at least strongly implies a fuel electrode: a solid electrolyte; and an air electrode, wherein as the air electrode, the air electrode according to claim 4 is used.
Claim 5 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane and Sugiura..
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane and Sugiura, further in view of Sun, et. al., Characterization of LaCoO3 Perovskite Catalyst for Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Zn-air Rechargeable Batteries, 24 (4) Journal of Hydrogen and New Energy 436 – 442, (2014).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Yongjiang and Sofiane are silent as to the particle size distribution, although Sofiane teaches that the size of the crystallites changes the properties of perovskite composite materials.
Sun teaches a perovskite composite oxide comprising LaCoO3, wherein this material acts as an air electrode, for battery applications, namely, “[wherein] air electrodes[s] consist[] [of] active materials as a catalyst, carbon black as a conductive additive, and a polymeric binder. For the activity for ORR & OER, the chemical composition and surface area of the catalyst are very important in the bi-functional electrode . . . The electrochemical catalytic activities of LaCoO3 powders with different particle sizes for ORR & OER were characterized in alkaline electrolyte.” Sun at 437. Sun teaches lanthanum and cobalt based perovskites have received attention for fairly high catalytic activity and low cost synthesis. Id. Sun presents Table 1 and Fig. 3, wherein the particle size distribution was modulated by ball milling time, and the ensuing electrical conductivity was measured. Id. at 439. In general, the particle size distribution acted as a result effective variable, wherein electric conductivity peaked at 2 hours of ball milling and a mean particle size of 0.85 µm. Id. Regarding the term “Microtrac,” Microtrac is a brand of laser diffraction laser diffraction analyzers. Product by process claim limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps – thereby, this is taken to imply a conventional laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement. MPEP 2113 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and Table 1 of Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that it comprises a particle size distribution calculated using a Microtrac particle size distribution measurement, a ratio D50N / D50v of a cumulative 50% particle size D50N calculated by a number distribution to a cumulative 50% particle size D50v calculated by a volume distribution is equal to or greater than 0.7, because the particle size distribution, and thereby the ratio between the number average and volume average methods of calculating this value, are known within the art (namely, Sun) to be a result effective variable, one of ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed ratio via routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 2 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane and Sugiura, and further in view of Sun.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Yongjiang.
Sun teaches a perovskite composite oxide comprising LaCoO3, wherein this material acts as an air electrode, for battery applications, namely, “[wherein] air electrodes[s] consist[] active materials as a catalyst, carbon black as a conductive additive, and a polymeric binder. For the activity for ORR & OER, the chemical composition and surface area of the catalyst are very important in the bi-functional electrode . . . The electrochemical catalytic activities of LaCoO3 powders with different particle sizes for ORR & OER were characterized in alkaline electrolyte.” Sun at 437. Sun teaches lanthanum and cobalt based perovskites have received attention for fairly high catalytic activity and low cost synthesis. Id. Sun presents Table 1 and Fig. 3, wherein the particle size distribution was modulated by ball milling time, and the ensuing electrical conductivity was measured. Id. at 439. In general, the particle size distribution acted as a result effective variable, wherein electric conductivity peaked at 2 hours of ball milling and a mean particle size of 0.85 µm. Id. Regarding the term “Microtrac,” Microtrac is a brand of laser diffraction laser diffraction analyzers. Product by process claim limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps – thereby, this is taken to imply a conventional laser diffraction particle size distribution measurement. MPEP 2113 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the filing date of the claimed invention find it obvious to modify the perovskite composite powder of Yongjiang, such that wherein in the particle size distribution calculated by the Microtrac particle size distribution measurement, a relationship in the volume distribution between a 10% cumulative particle size D10V, a 50% cumulative particle size D50v and a 90% cumulative particle size D90v is 1.0 ≤ (D90v – D10v) / D50v ≤ 1.2, because the particle size distribution, and thereby the ratio between the number average and volume average methods of calculating this value, are known within the art (namely Sun) to be a result effective variable, one of ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed ratio via routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 3 is obvious over Yongjiang, in view of Sofiane, and further in view of Sun.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights